Refusing to accept sexism

Several articles at the CounterPunch website that criticized Angelina Jolie for her decision to publicize that she underwent a double mastectomy have provoked strong criticism. Here, activists and scholars register their disappointment with CounterPunch for its use of sexist language and its belittling attitudes toward a serious issue.

RUTH FOWLER has used two CounterPunch columns to criticize Angelina Jolie for writing a New York Times essay to discuss her decision to have a double mastectomy, while not recognizing and acknowledging: 1) the economic means she holds to undergo an expensive medical procedure other women can't afford; and 2) that a corporation called Myriad Genetics is generating enormous profits by driving up screening tests for breast cancer. Fowler argues that these contradictions undermine Jolie's credibility to speak for survivors of breast cancer.

We disagree.

First and foremost, all medical patients diagnosed with potentially fatal illnesses deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Jolie deserves respect as someone who spoke out bravely about the difficult decision to have a double mastectomy rather than risk getting breast cancer. Fowler fails to acknowledge this and uses Jolie's celebrity to try to strip her of her fundamental humanity. The title of her first article, "Angelia Jolie: On Privilege, Tits, and Being Dumb," reduces Jolie to a pair of "tits" in a move not that different from the sensationalist media that routinely objectifies women.

Julian Vigo, in her response to Smith, focuses her critique on the use of the term "tit," defending its use by Fowler and responding with what we expect a typical male undergraduate student to say when first introduced to the notion of women's objectification: "CounterPunch also uses titles with 'dick,' 'penis,' and 'cock' in them."

The problem with these articles in CounterPunch is that they use a left cover to recycle sexist tropes while hiding behind class outrage.

Second, Fowler ruthlessly attacks Jolie's apparent ignorance about the sexist machinations of the medical industry without noting that a lack of information under capitalism is fairly common. Information about pharmaceutical companies and the role they play in shaping our health care "choices" are neither easily accessible nor discussed openly in mainstream media. While Jolie surely could have done more "homework" on the health care system before writing her piece, we should acknowledge that Myriad Genetics and the health care industry are what deny women access to good health care, not Jolie.

Since Jolie's article, there has been widespread media coverage of breast cancer as well as preventative measures open to women. Surely, as feminists we should welcome this development. Additionally, the ACLU has taken Myriad to court about its patent monopoly, creating an opening to critique the for-profit health care system.

Third, Fowler ridicules Jolie's wealth and celebrity in a mean-spirited effort to discredit her attempts to educate other women about how to preserve personal dignity in the face of medical trauma.

When women negotiate the health care industry, they face a double jeopardy: the everyday scrutiny of female bodies and sexualities are heightened and pathologized. To this is added the fear and horror of care being solely determined by affordability.

Any attempt to shed light on this difficult process, regardless of the class of the person that it comes from, should be welcomed. When a "celebrity" such as Jolie speaks about double mastectomy not affecting her femininity, she is bringing relief to many women who are caught in this trap of gender and class. And because she is a celebrity (who need not have exposed herself to such scrutiny, we might add), she created a larger space in the mainstream media to reflect on these issues.

To be sure, Angelina Jolie is not a revolutionary. Nor is she, quite probably, what we could agree is a feminist. What we wish to defend in this statement is less Jolie and her politics, but rather her boldness in coming forward and the opening that has created to discuss this painful issue.

We are disappointed that CounterPunch has run three articles on this question, but has refused to spend a second being self-reflexive about the sexism in these articles and their headlines, much less provide a space for those who wish to articulate a different and non-sexist position.

Material on this Web site is licensed by SocialistWorker.org, under a Creative Commons (by-nc-nd 3.0) license, except for articles that are republished with permission. Readers are welcome to share and use material belonging to this site for non-commercial purposes, as long as they are attributed to the author and SocialistWorker.org.